fostel@ncsu.UUCP (10/06/83)
Some few days ago I suggested that there was something "different"
about psychology and tried to draw a distinction between the flash
of insight or the pet theory in physics as compared to psychology.
Well, someone else commented on the original, in a way that sugested
I missed the mark in my original effort to make it clear. One more time:
I presume that at birth, ones mind is not predisposed to one or another
of several possible theories of heavy molecule collision (for example.)
Further, I think it unlikely that personal or emotional interaction in
one "pre-analytic" stage (see anything about developmental psych.) is
is likely to bear upon ones opinions about those molecules. In fact I
find it hard to believe that anything BUT technical learning is likely
to bear on ones intuition about the molecules. One might want to argue
that ones personality might force you to lean towards "aggressive" or
overly complex theories, but I doubt that such effects will lead to
the creation of a theory. Only a rather mild predisposition at best.
In psychology it is entirely different. A person who is agresive has
lots of reasons to assume everyone else is as well. Or paranoid, or
that rote learning is esp good or bad, or that large dogs are dangerous
or a number of other things that bear directly on ones theories of the
mind. And these biases are aquired from the process of living and are
quite un-avoidable. This is not technical learning. The effect is
that even in the face of considerable technical learning, ones intuition
or "pet theories" in psychology might be heavily influenced in creation
of the theory as well as selection, by ones life experiences, possibly
to the exclusion of ones technical opinions. (Who knows what goes on in
the sub-conscious.) While one does not encounter heavy molecules often
in ones everyday life or ones childhood, one DOES encounter other people
and more significantly ones own mind.
It seems clear that intuition in physics is based upon a different sort
of knowledge than intuition about psychology. The latter is a combination
of technical AND everyday intuition while the former is not.
----GaryFostel----laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (10/10/83)
Gary, I don't know about why you think about physics, but I know something about why *I* think about physics. You see, i have this deep fondness for "continuous creation" as opposed to "the big bang". This is too bad for me, since "big bang" appears to be correct, or at any rate, "continuous creation" appears to be *wrong*. Perhaps what it more correct is "bang! sproiinngg.... bang!" or a series of bangs, but this is not the issue. these days, if you ask me to explain the origins of the universe, from a physical point of veiw I am going to discuss "big bang". I can do this. It just does not have the same emotional satisfaction to me as "c c" but that is too bad for me, I do not go around spreading antiquidated theories to people who ask me in good faith for information. But what if the evidence were not all in yet? What if there were an equal number of reasons to believe one or the other? What would I be doing? talking about continuous creation. i might add a footnote that there was "this other theory ... the big bang theory" but I would not discuss it much. I have that strong an emotional attatchment to "continuous creation". You can also read that other great issues in physics and astronomy had their great believers -- there were the great "wave versus particle" theories of light, and The Tycho Brahe cosmology versus the Kepler cosmology, and these days you get similar arguments ... In 50 years, we may all look back and say, well, how silly, everyone should have seen that X, since X is now patently obvious. This will explain why people believe X now, but not why people believed X then, or why people DIDN'T believe X then. Why didn't Tycho Brahe come up with Kepler's theories? It wasn't that Kepler was a better experiementer, for Kepler himself admits that he was a lousy experimenter and Brahe was reknowned for having the best instraments in the world, and being the most painstaking in measurements. it wasn't that they did not know each other, for Kepler worked with Brahe, and replaced him as Royal Astronomer, and was familiar with his work before he ever met Brahe... It wasn't that Brahe was religious and Kepler was not, for it was Kepler that was almost made a minister and studied very hard in Church schools (which literally brought him out of peasantry into the middle class) while Brahe, the rich nobleman, could get away with acts that the church frowned upon (to put if mildly). Yet Kepler was able to think in terms of Heliocentric, while Brahe, who came so...so..close balked at the idea and put the sun circling the earth while all the other planets circled the sun. Absolutely astonishing! I do not know where these differences came from. However, I have a pretty good idea why continuous creation is more emotionally satisfying for me than "big bang" (though these days I am getting to like "bang! sproing! bang!" as well.) As a child, i ran across the "c c" theory at the same time as i ran across all sorts of the things that interest me to this day. In particular, I recall reading it at the same time that I was doing a long study of myths, or creation myths in particular. Certain myths appealed to me, and certain ones did not. In particular, the myths that centred around the Judeao-Christian tradition (the one god created the world -- boom!) had almost no appeal to me those days, since I had utter and extreme loathing for the god in question. (this in turn was based on the discovery that this same wonderful god was the one that tortured and burned millions in his name for the great sin of heresy.) And thus, "big bang" which smacked of "poof! god created" was much less favoured by me at age 8 than continuous creation (no creator necessary). Now that I am older, I have a lot more tolerance for Yaveh, and I do not find it intollerable to believe in the Big Bang. However, it is not as satisfying. Thus I know that some of my beliefs which in another time could have been essential to my scientific theories and inspirations, are based on an 8-year-old me reading about the witchcraft trials. It seems likely that somebody out there is furthering science by discovering new theories based on ideas which are equally scientific. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (10/10/83)
> I presume that at birth, ones mind is not predisposed to one or another > of several possible theories of heavy molecule collision (for example.) > Further, I think it unlikely that personal or emotional interaction in > one "pre-analytic" stage (see anything about developmental psych.) is > is likely to bear upon ones opinions about those molecules. In fact I > find it hard to believe that anything BUT technical learning is likely > to bear on ones intuition about the molecules. One might want to argue > that ones personality might force you to lean towards "aggressive" or > overly complex theories, but I doubt that such effects will lead to > the creation of a theory. Only a rather mild predisposition at best. > In psychology it is entirely different. A person who is agresive has > lots of reasons to assume everyone else is as well. Or paranoid, or > that rote learning is esp good or bad, or that large dogs are dangerous > or a number of other things that bear directly on ones theories of the > mind. And these biases are aquired from the process of living and are > quite un-avoidable. The author believes that, though behavior patterns and experiences in a person's life may affect their viewpoint in psychological studies, this does not apply in "technical sciences" (not the author's phrasing, and not mine either---I just can't think of another term) like physics. It would seem that flashes of "insight" obtained by anyone in a field involving discovery have to be based on both the technical knowledge that the person already has AND the entire life experience up to that point. To oversimplify, if one has never seen a specific living entity (a flower, a specific animal) or witnessed a physical event, or participated in a particular human interaction, one cannot base a proposed scientific model on these things, and these flashes are often based on such analogies to reality.